IN RE: MARIMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted of murdering his own sister, Lakshmi, and his five year old child Dayalan, though he was very much attached to them. We might at once state that consequently the sole question before the court is whether at the time of the attack on these persons, the Appellant was of unsound mind and by reason of that unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law, and would therefore be entitled to the benefit of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge answered this question against the Appellant in view of some circumstances. But, on a consideration of all the circumstances, we feel constrained to differ from him, and we have no hesitation in holding that the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts really lie in a narrow compass. The Appellant was living in a portion of the out -house in No. 66 Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Madras, with his wife (P.W. 5) and five year old child. His widowed sister, Lakshmi was also living with him. For some six months prior to the occurrence (the occurrence was on 3rd April 1968 at 2 -30 p.m.) Lakshmi had been ill in particular, she complained of some stomach -ache The Appellant himself got her admitted in the hospital. She became better. However, she fell ill again. The Appellant himself was not well. The Appellant seems to have believed that his ill -health and that of his sister were due to the result of some black magic. His maternal uncle applied sacred ash to the Appellant and his sister. They became slightly better. However, about four days prior to the occurrence Lakshmi complained of stomach pain. From that time the Appellant began to worship Kali. There was a picture of Kali in his house and there was also a picture of Muruga. The Appellant, according to the evidence of his wife, P.W. 5 used to offer worship to those pictures and offer sacred ash to Lakshmi.

(3.) IN the morning of Wednesday (3rd April 1968) the Appellant washed his face and left his house saying that he was going for work. P.W. 5 followed him. The Appellant went to a tea shop. P.W. 5 stood near him. The Appellant asked her why she had come there. She replied that she had no particular purpose. Their son Dayalan(sic) had also followed P.W. 5. The Appellant got P.W. 5 a. cup of tea and two dosais for Dayalan. Thereafter the Appellant took P.W: 5 and Dayalan. back to their house. He did not go for work, he stayed in the house. P.W. 5 also valid(sic) not go for work. However, about 11 a.m. she went to the Subramania Swarai temple at Teynampet and spent some time in worship. When she left the house the Appellant was lying inside the house. By the time she returned home, about 4 p.m. the gruesome murders had taken place. P.W. 5 affirms that the Appellant was very fond of his sister, Lakshmi, and his son Dayalan.